Human alien interactions

[AleisterCrowley]

I read War of the Worlds for the first time a few months ago (free on my Amazon Fire...)
Cracking book actually, almost Lovecraftian in parts

[XFool]

That 1967 Guardian article about six UFOs was, if memory serves, a student hoax.

Yes.

Farnborough pranksters behind UFO hoax relive memories 50 years on

https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/hampshire-news/farnborough-pranksters-behind-ufo-hoax-13532270

[i]Trainee engineers from the former Royal Aircraft Establishment put the nation on high alert in 1967 with their flying saucers
{ I have no idea why 'italic' is mysteriously not working on that last line - Alien intervention? }

"Masterminds of a national alien hoax cooked up in Farnborough in 1967 are holding a reunion on the eve of its 50th anniversary.

A band of mischievous trainee engineers from the MoD’s ( Ministry of Defence ) Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE) in Farnborough were behind the audacious prank."

[odysseus2000]

Interesting how the authorities tried to cover things up. Since they had actual craft the opportunity to be famous as finders of the first aliens was in their hands, but instead tried to shut the story down.

Regards,

[XFool]

Last, but not least:

Metabunk

https://www.metabunk.org/home/

About Metabunk

"Metabunk.org is dedicated to the art and pastime of honest, polite, scientific investigating and debunking. It is primarily a discussion forum, however the focus is on providing concise useful resources, and attempting to avoid repetitive debate and arguments..."

[odysseus2000]

Last, but not least:

Metabunk

https://www.metabunk.org/home/

About Metabunk

"Metabunk.org is dedicated to the art and pastime of honest, polite, scientific investigating and debunking. It is primarily a discussion forum, however the focus is on providing concise useful resources, and attempting to avoid repetitive debate and arguments..."

Nice video on the navy gimbal image as being a glare.

If this is right then the statements made by the US navy that uap exist is a hoax: US navy saying something exists when they know it does not & all the released video they know to be misidentified heat from a distant jet or some other corruption to their sensor suite.

Additionally if the US navy statement that they saw this in several wavelengths is correct then that implies that there are artefacts in all their systems in multiple ways as the navy video commentary talks of more than one uap.

Certainly the analysis of the video can be explained as they do and if it is a flare from some distant jet, presumably they knew that too. If all of this is correct they called off a training exercise & despatched a plane to collect sensor data that they knew was not reality.

As with so much of this stuff one can create logical no new physics explanations for any particular event but the consequences of doing that are that the whole navy air defence sensor suite & the folk using it can not rely on what it is telling them.

The shooting down of an airbus in the Gulf did expose troubles with the composite navy air defence system which mistook the airbus for a incoming jet on an attack trajectory.

All in all it is possible to restrict analysis to one thing & show that the one thing is what ever fits, but to be convincing such analysis has to fit in with all the other evidence/artefacts & this video does not do that as far as I am concerned.

It may be right, but they need to follow up & explain everything else too & also discuss why the US navy is creating hoax information on uap, saying they exist when they are seeing artefacts.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Genuine alien flying saucer found on Mars, YouTube short video:

https://youtube.com/shorts/v1oL3WFQXlo?feature=share

Regards,

[XFool]

Last, but not least:

Metabunk

https://www.metabunk.org/home/

About Metabunk

"Metabunk.org is dedicated to the art and pastime of honest, polite, scientific investigating and debunking. It is primarily a discussion forum, however the focus is on providing concise useful resources, and attempting to avoid repetitive debate and arguments..."

Nice video on the navy gimbal image as being a glare.

If this is right then the statements made by the US navy that uap exist is a hoax: US navy saying something exists when they know it does not & all the released video they know to be misidentified heat from a distant jet or some other corruption to their sensor suite.

Surely hoax is not the only explanation? I don't know the circumstances and reasons they released the video - I believe it had already been 'released' unofficially. Possibly a FOI request?

Additionally if the US navy statement that they saw this in several wavelengths is correct then that implies that there are artefacts in all their systems in multiple ways as the navy video commentary talks of more than one uap.

Again, what does that actually mean? Do these observations even relate to the same things? How do we know? It is all so complicated and uncertain, not like that simple 1951 sighting. I find it all very unclear and unconvincing - including the testimony from "experienced" pilots. The more I hear testimony from "experienced" pilots the more unconvincing I find them!

As with so much of this stuff one can create logical no new physics explanations for any particular event but the consequences of doing that are that the whole navy air defence sensor suite & the folk using it can not rely on what it is telling them.

Yeah! That thought had, worryingly, occurred to me. Let's hope, if it comes to it, Russian "experienced" pilots are no better than ours.

Seriously, maybe an "experienced" pilot is just that: very experienced at their specific job, but no more experienced than anyone else outside of that narrow range? Clearly, in these particular UAP events, so many different circumstances, conditions, systems, areas of expertise and personnel are concerned that really it is pretty well impossible to get a good grasp of what is really happening. Originally they seemed convincing and cut & dried. But the more information that becomes available the muddier the whole thing becomes.

All in all it is possible to restrict analysis to one thing & show that the one thing is what ever fits, but to be convincing such analysis has to fit in with all the other evidence/artefacts & this video does not do that as far as I am concerned.

It may be right, but they need to follow up & explain everything else too & also discuss why the US navy is creating hoax information on uap, saying they exist when they are seeing artefacts.

But are they saying that? Or just putting it out there and allowing others to conclude whatever they want to? Anyway, why should the US Navy consider that explaining them to be part of their mission? And if it is - for operational technical reasons - they are not going to publicise that!

[odysseus2000]

Xfool


But are they saying that? Or just putting it out there and allowing others to conclude whatever they want to? Anyway, why should the US Navy consider that explaining them to be part of their mission? And if it is - for operational technical reasons - they are not going to publicise that!

The statement released said uap exist & they do not know what they are.

One could argue that uap are some natural phenomenon that is visible to optical, radar, infra red.

Uap have to be either some unknown natural phenomenon visible in many wavelengths, or advanced human tech or alien or some huge hoax. All of these require detailed examination & confirmation or rebuttal.

For now there seems to be an intense “make smoke” operation by many people so that it is impossible to know what is false.

Regards,

[XFool]

Xfool

But are they saying that? Or just putting it out there and allowing others to conclude whatever they want to? Anyway, why should the US Navy consider that explaining them to be part of their mission? And if it is - for operational technical reasons - they are not going to publicise that!

The statement released said uap exist & they do not know what they are.

We all knew that already!

One could argue that uap are some natural phenomenon that is visible to optical, radar, infra red.

Uap have to be either some unknown natural phenomenon visible in many wavelengths, or advanced human tech or alien or some huge hoax. All of these require detailed examination & confirmation or rebuttal.

Or they could simply be mistakes. Mistaken observation, errors in interpretation, system failures or artefacts. In those US Naval UAPs there are simply too many factors or unknowns to be able to easily make much coherent sense of what was going on. IMO.

Different UAP reports may have very different, and unrelated, explanations.

For now there seems to be an intense “make smoke” operation by many people so that it is impossible to know what is false

With those Navy tapes I don't think anyone needs to make any more "smoke", I think there is more than enough built in.

[XFool]

Large patterns in water, small object going back and forth above? So you want a 'theory' ?

US Navy exercise; large Russian submarine near surface; small observation balloon???

Project MOGUL redux?

[odysseus2000]

Large patterns in water, small object going back and forth above? So you want a 'theory' ?

US Navy exercise; large Russian submarine near surface; small observation balloon???

Project MOGUL redux?

Fravor says the uap was 50 ft, then when he went to investigate & cut the circle to get a good view it moved off at very high speed, some balloon!

Regards,

[XFool]

Large patterns in water, small object going back and forth above? So you want a 'theory' ?

US Navy exercise; large Russian submarine near surface; small observation balloon???

Project MOGUL redux?

Fravor says the uap was 50 ft

Yeah. He says more than one thing I would take issue with! How could he know what size it was? By being an "experienced pilot" in his words. Possibly not experienced enough?

...then when he went to investigate & cut the circle to get a good view it moved off at very high speed, some balloon!

So he says. But then... Remember, whatever these thing are he hasn't identified them, so how can he simultaneously describe their dimensions, distance and speed just by looking at them?

Anyway - I thought I'd just float the idea.

[XFool]

If only these things were simple!

Gimbal UFO - A New Analysis

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/gimbal-ufo-a-new-analysis.12333/

[XFool]

F-18 Pilot, Ryan Graves Transcript: “I Imagine People That Have Been Following [UFOs] For A While Are Pretty Excited. 2018, 2019 Was Kind Of Their Year.”

https://www.ufojoe.net/graves-transcript/

...

"RG: The way it worked was we didn’t start seeing these until we upgraded our radars from APG-73 to the APG-79."

...

"KR: How close would they get to you and the ship? Was it something where you could…because you had these IR sensors. You could see them there. You could see them on radar. How about visually, like actually looking out the window?" [ My emphasis ]

Man! It's a simple enough question. At least it is to me, but then I'm not an "experienced" US Navy fighter pilot.

Here is how he answers(?!) it:

"RG: Yeah, so that’s when things got really interesting. So, at this point, we weren’t actually around the ship that much because we hadn’t quite started getting ready for deployment. So we were still landing at Virginia Beach. But, you know, so we were doing these training missions and sometimes you have some downtime, where you’re just kind of transiting somewhere. And occasionally people would try to fly up to one of these things and check it out, you know? Trying to stay at a safe distance, but fly up to it.

KR: Were you one of those people or was it just like a buddy or something?

RG: Yeah, oh yeah, I tried. Yeah, I tried (both laugh).

KR: So when you saw them out there, were you just like, okay, I’m gonna go cruise up to this thing and see what’s up?

RG: Yeah, like, hey, you know, I gotta go reset thirty miles away, you know, at a max endurance profile, you know, it’s gonna take me eight minutes. And there’s one of these on the way. Let’s go, you know, take a little peek.

KR: Yeah. So what happened when you would zoom up to these things?

RG: So, as we were zooming up to these things, you know, we got our radar on it. We have a FLIR on it. All those sensors are sending information to our helmet, but in a little green circle, you know, as I look out into the world, it’s overlaying information over my eyes. And I’m seeing exactly where I should look, right? We’re getting closer and closer. And we basically merged with it, which means that from a radar operator’s perspective, say, on the shore or on the boat, we’re so close that they can no longer tell our radar signatures apart. So we merge with it. And you know, we merge all the time. That’s how we start our dog fights and things like that. So we do a lot of training. You know, looking at an aircraft as we’ve merged. Even though it takes, you know, a tenth of a second as we zip by at 800 miles, relative velocity. But we’d almost never see them, you know? And typically, what would result is, we think, you know, seeing in our helmet and then seeing where it was after, it was that it would change altitude, you know? As we’re getting close."

So "No" then! Although whether he is referring to other aircraft generally or the UAP, or both, is not entirely clear to me.

"(Joe’s Comment: If these objects were on radar and FLIR for the ride out there, exactly when did they change altitude? Was any pilot or WSO ever looking at the radar or FLIR as they changed altitude? Did anybody ever see it change altitude, visually? When Graves/his colleagues merged (on radar) with an object but couldn’t see it visually, could they still see it on their radar and FLIR? He says they’d almost never see them. I assume he means visually? I’d like him to define “almost never.” And if some of his colleagues did see them visually, at a close range, what did they look like and what kind of maneuvers were they making? This is extremely important because right now, I’m giving consideration to the electronic warfare/radar spoofing theory as one possible explanation for some of these sightings. Even though I resisted it at first, my mind is open after reading numerous articles on “The Drive: The Warzone” which deal with technology that could explain some of these encounters. Or not. I just don’t know at this point. Tyler Rogoway, of “The Drive,” has tweeted that he’s planning on writing an article spelling out what he thinks is going on. I look forward to that because I still don’t understand all of this tech talk. But the fact that Graves says these guys weren’t able to see these things with their eyes is a bit of a red flag to me. On the other side (as you’ll see at the very end of this transcript), there supposedly exists evidence that, as far I know, cannot be explained by radar spoofing. )" [ Text Emphasis mine ]

Likewise!

Trying to interpret what these "experienced" pilots actually saw and experienced is really hard work.

[XFool]

AN/APG-73 RADAR

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/apg73

HIGHER THROUGHPUTS. GREATER MEMORY CAPACITY. IMPROVED RELIABILITY

"The reprogrammable AN/APG-73 radar responds to new threats and accommodates future modes and weapons through software changes rather than hardware retrofit.

The APG-73 is an all-weather, coherent, multimode, multiwaveform search-and-track sensor that uses programmable digital processors to provide the features and flexibility needed for both air-to-air and air-to-surface missions. It is an upgrade of the APG-65 that provides higher throughputs, greater memory capacity, improved reliability, and easier maintenance without associated increases in size or weight.

Phase II of the APG upgrade completed development. It incorporates a motion-sensing subsystem with reconnaissance software, a stretch waveform generator module, and a special test equipment instrumentation and reconnaissance module. With these enhancements, the F/A-18 aircraft will have the hardware capability to make high-resolution radar ground maps comparable with those of the F-15E and the U-2 aircraft, and be able to perform precision strike missions using advanced image correlation algorithms."

Um...

[XFool]

I have this 'theory' - let's call it the XFool Effect - about the modern world.

It was originally brought to mind by the subject of London landline telephone numbers!

UK telephone code misconceptions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_telephone_code_misconceptions

The 'theory' states: "The modern civilised world has become too complicated for most ordinary people to understand"

[odysseus2000]

The belief that all these uap are artefacts of the avionics systems is a very commonly held belief among many physicists who dismiss uap.

If uap had only appeared with new avionics systems then it would be plausible, but they have been seen for over 70 years & were first noted as optical images by flight crew.

There are also numerous articles about pilots who tried to get in close & some of these led to aircraft crashes & dead pilots.

All the early reports might have been hoax, but if so most of the military all over the world spent a fortune investigating hoax and writing reports.

A lot of the analysis looks like deliberate misinformation designed to sow doubt and uncertainty into as many minds as possible. If this is true what are they trying to hide?

If you are writing books & getting tv appearance money then you would want as many as possible to believe. If you are government trying to hide something you would need as much confusion as possible.

I do not know what is truth & what is propaganda and it seems many folk want me to stay in this uncertain state.

Regards,

[XFool]

The belief that all these uap are artefacts of the avionics systems is a very commonly held belief among many physicists who dismiss uap.

If uap had only appeared with new avionics systems then it would be plausible, but they have been seen for over 70 years & were first noted as optical images by flight crew.

Again, there is no reason to believe all UAP sightings in history are the same or have a single explanation.

There are also numerous articles about pilots who tried to get in close & some of these led to aircraft crashes & dead pilots.

Very possibly, if they were chasing Venus or something that was never really there.

All the early reports might have been hoax, but if so most of the military all over the world spent a fortune investigating hoax and writing reports.

A lot of the analysis looks like deliberate misinformation designed to sow doubt and uncertainty into as many minds as possible. If this is true what are they trying to hide?

I'm afraid that sounds rather like classic conspiracy theory thinking to me.

If you are writing books & getting tv appearance money then you would want as many as possible to believe. If you are government trying to hide something you would need as much confusion as possible.

I do not know what is truth & what is propaganda and it seems many folk want me to stay in this uncertain state.

I think there may be other kinds of explanation.

[BobbyD]

The 'theory' states: "The modern civilised world has become too complicated for most ordinary people to understand"

The world has become so complicated that even an extraordinary individual can only understand a tiny part of it. The fall of the renaissance Man.

[odysseus2000]

xfool
I'm afraid that sounds rather like classic conspiracy theory thinking to me.

Yes, I agree, but there is certainty that all the world's powers conspired for decades to keep their research into uap secret.

With that background it makes for a lack of trust in anything and so I am trying to look at what might be facts and try and fit them into the overall narrative.

Folk who focus on one thing and ignore everything else do not imho help their case, especially when their focus is very narrow and relies on extreme expert analysis that, if there are aliens with unknown drive mechanisms for their vessels, could be compromised.

Regards,